Lecture in 5 minutes: how to communicate in a conflict situation

Have you ever tried to find two absolutely identical people? Even if there are those who can answer this question in the affirmative, the likelihood that their search will be successful is very small, because there cannot be two identical people, just like two identical fingerprints or two identical irises. This is, perhaps, one of the reasons why conflicts arise between people from time to time.

And in order to be able to effectively resolve conflict situations, a person simply needs to know how to behave when they arise, i.e. be able to choose a manner of behavior that is most suitable for the characteristics of each specific situation. But many people always behave the same way during conflict interactions, having absolutely no idea that they can change the strategy of their behavior. It is about strategies for behavior in conflict that we will talk about today.

And you can learn how to find approaches to different people and establish connections in our online program “The Best Communication Techniques.”

But first, it is worth saying that one of the most prominent conflict experts, Kenneth Thomas, divided all types of behavior in conflict situations into two main areas - the desire of the subject of the conflict to defend his personal interests and the desire of the subject of the conflict to take into account the interests of other people. It is on the basis of these criteria that we can identify the main strategies of people’s behavior in conflict. There are five of them in total:

• Rivalry
• Device
• Evasion
• Compromise
• Cooperation

We will, of course, consider them all. But while these five strategies are exhaustive for most jobs like this, we'll look at two more effective strategies. Namely:

• Suppression
• Negotiation

So, let’s not, as they say, use “airtime” unnecessarily, and let’s get down to the main topic of today’s article.

Rivalry

Rivalry is a type of behavior when a subject strives to satisfy his own interests, causing damage to the interests of the opposing subject. Following the presented strategy, a person is confident that only one participant can gain the upper hand in a conflict, and victory for one will always mean defeat for the other. A person who prefers competition will “push his line” in every way available to him. They will not take into account the opposite position.

Basic human actions with the “Competition” strategy

• Tight control over your opponent's actions
• Constant and deliberate pressure on an opponent by any means
• The use of deception and tricks to create an advantage in one’s favor
• Provoking your opponent to make mistakes and ill-considered steps
• Reluctance to engage in constructive dialogue due to overconfidence

Pros and cons of the “Rivalry” strategy

Rigidly defending one's position can, of course, help the subject gain the upper hand in the event of a conflict. But such a strategy cannot be applied if the subsequent interaction of people involves long-term relationships, for example, joint work, friendship, love. After all, relationships can develop and generally have the right to exist only if the desires and interests of all people are taken into account, and the defeat of one will mean defeat for everyone. Therefore, if the person with whom you have a conflict is dear to you or the relationship with him is important to you for some reason, it is better not to use the strategy of competition to resolve the conflict.

2

"Nothing personal just business"

In a recent article about betrayal and fidelity, I already said that relationships are in many ways similar to cooperation between business partners. As long as cooperation is mutually beneficial, it lives and grows stronger. As soon as at least one of the parties ceases to understand why it needs this “cooperation”, the relationship falls apart.

The business analogy may seem unfortunate because marital relationships are built on personal likes and dislikes. But in fact, sympathy is nothing more than the profitable side of “business,” and antipathy is the unprofitable side. After all, we do not love our partner unconditionally, but for our own benefit for specific positive talents and qualities. On progressman.ru, a recent article on the “debt” of love is devoted to this topic.

So, try to imagine a smart businessman for whom cooperation with a partner has ceased to bring benefits. How will he react? Will he whine and lament, calling on his partner for justice? Or maybe he will get drunk and seek solace from friends or parents? Or maybe he will withdraw into himself and devote time to a depressive study of the patterns on the ceiling?

Do you see what I'm getting at? A smart businessman is practical, and either reorganizes unprofitable cooperation, transforming it into a profitable one, or ends it as exhausted. And there is no place for childish grievances in mature relationships. "Only business".

And if with the termination of cooperation everything is more or less clear (it’s not a complicated matter), then transforming unprofitable relationships into profitable ones is a whole science that everyone masters the hard way. This “science” ideally answers the most difficult questions about how to harmonize negative communication and learn to steer crisis situations into a peaceful direction.

Device

Adaptation as a way of behavior in a conflict is characterized by the fact that the subject is ready to put his needs, desires and interests into the background and make concessions to the opponent in order to prevent confrontation. This strategy is often chosen by people with low self-esteem, insecure and who believe that their position and opinion should not be taken into account.

Basic human actions with the “Adaptation” strategy

• Constant agreement with the opponent’s demands to please him
• Active demonstration of a passive position
• No claim to victory and resistance
• Flattery, pandering to the opponent

Pros and cons of the Accommodation strategy

In the event that the subject of the conflict is not particularly important, and the main thing is to maintain constructive interaction, allowing the person to gain the upper hand, thereby asserting himself, can be the most effective way to resolve the conflict. However, if the cause of the conflict is something significant, something that affects the feelings of all people involved in the conflict, then such a strategy will not bring the desired result. In this case, the result will be only negative emotions of the one who made concessions, and all trust, mutual understanding and respect between the participants may completely disappear.

3

Avoidance

The essence of this strategy is that a person tries to do everything possible to postpone conflict and important decisions until later. With this strategy, a person not only does not defend his own interests, but also does not pay attention to the interests of his opponent.

Basic human actions with the “Avoidance” strategy

• Refusal to interact with an opponent
• Demonstrative withdrawal tactics
• Refusal to use force
• Ignoring any information from the opponent, refusing to collect facts
• Denial of the importance and seriousness of the conflict
• Deliberate slowness in decision making
• Fear of making a retaliatory move

Pros and cons of the Avoidance strategy

The “Avoidance” strategy can be useful in a situation where the essence of the conflict is not particularly important or when there are no plans to maintain relations with the opponent. But here again: if a relationship with a person is important to you, then avoiding responsibility and shifting problems onto someone else’s shoulders will not resolve the situation, otherwise it threatens not only to worsen the situation, but also to deteriorate the relationship and even its final break.

4

Types of behavior strategies in conflicts

The issue is studied by the sciences of social science and the discipline of conflictology. There are more than 100 meanings of the term “conflict”, some of them contradict each other. In general, we can say that conflict is an expression of discontent and contradictions that arise as a result of a difference of opinion.

Today, one of the most famous and widely used in conflict resolution is the work of Thomas-Killman. According to the concept, there are the following strategies for behavior in conflict:

1. rivalry;
2. compromise;
3. device;
4. cooperation;
5. evasion.

Rivalry

Rivalry is an attempt to impose your point of view and desired result on the opposite side. Personal interests come first, without taking into account the opinions of the opponent. This manner of behavior can only be used by people who have some power and advantage.

Note! According to the results of the Kenneth Thomas test, in more than 65% of cases people choose the principle of competition, and not always consciously.

Compromise

Compromise is behavior in conflict that involves resolving the dispute. Those in conflict are ready to partially renounce their beliefs in order to make a decision that equally satisfies both parties. By using this method, everyone loses something. The strategy makes sense when opponents have a common goal, the result of which is not divided in half, for example, the desire of 2 buyers to pick up the last product.

Found a compromise

Device

Accommodation is behavior in conflict that involves working together to solve a problem. Each puts his personal interests above the interests of his opponent, but one of the parties temporarily agrees with the opponent’s point of view in order to later receive concessions from him. Psychologists say that accommodation is often the main way to resolve disputes.

Cooperation

Cooperation is behavior in conflict where both parties find a joint solution that transforms enemies into partners. The main characteristic of cooperation is that the search for solutions must always satisfy both. This strategy can be used as an example of behavior with business partners.

Important! The cause of the conflict determines how appropriate it is to use a cooperative strategy. If the result is vital for one of the parties involved in the conflict, cooperation is impossible. Any attempts at interaction will develop into struggle or rivalry.

Evasion

Often the strategy is used when the conflict does not affect the interests of one or more parties. There are situations when they try to involve a third party in a dispute between two people, then avoidance can illustrate the person’s reluctance to enter into conflict.

Other Behavior Styles

In addition to the 5 common Thomas-Killman strategies, in psychology there are 2 more options for the development of events:

1. Suppression. It is permissible to use when the situation becomes aggressive and threatens human life or health. Suppression may be initiated by one of the parties or come from a third party. For example, when students argue in class, the third party is the teacher who suppresses the conflict;
2. Negotiation. They can take different forms: from family to state. The main function of negotiations is to reduce aggression and approach the problem rationally. All parties agree on further actions on mutually beneficial terms. As a result of negotiations, a transition to strategies of cooperation or compromise is possible.

At the negotiating table

Compromise

Compromise is a partial satisfaction of the interests of all subjects of conflict interaction.

Basic human actions with the “Compromise” strategy

• Focus on equality of positions
• Offering your own options in response to your opponent’s offer of options
• Sometimes using cunning or flattery to gain favor from an opponent
• Striving to find a mutually beneficial solution

Pros and cons of the “Compromise” strategy

Despite the fact that compromise implies satisfaction of the interests of all subjects of conflict interaction, which, in fact, is fair, it is important to keep in mind that in most situations this strategy should be considered only as an intermediate stage in resolving the situation, preceding the search for the most optimal solution, completely satisfactory to the conflicting parties.

5

What is conflict?

Conflict is an unresolved state of contradiction between two objects.

They, in turn, can be either an individual or a social group. The latter very often happens in criminal circles, where the desire to fight for power acts as a conflict driver.

A conflictogen is something that leads to conflict. And anything can lead.

It could be an incorrect intonation, a gesture, or any other random manifestation of another person's behavior that turned out to be poorly interpreted by the other person.

Also, a phrase that is said by a provocateur in order to resolve the conflict can act as a conflictogen. In general, people go into conflict for various reasons:

• Through my own carelessness.
  Because of the desire to rise above others. Out of envy. To set it up. There are many causes of conflict, so it is better to focus on the types of conflicts.

Cooperation

By choosing a cooperation strategy, the subject of the conflict is determined to resolve the conflict in such a way that it is beneficial to all participants. Moreover, here the position of the opponent or opponents is not simply taken into account, but there is also a desire to ensure that their demands are satisfied as much as possible, as well as one’s own.

Basic human actions with the “Cooperation” strategy

• Gathering information about the opponent, the subject of the conflict and the conflict itself
• Calculating the resources of all participants in the interaction in order to develop alternative proposals
• Open discussion of the conflict, the desire to objectify it
• Consideration of opponent's proposals

Pros and cons of the Collaboration strategy

Cooperation is focused mainly on understanding the opposing position, paying attention to the opponent’s point of view, and finding a solution that suits everyone. Thanks to this approach, mutual respect, understanding and trust can be achieved, which best contributes to the development of long-term, strong and stable relationships. Cooperation is most effective when the subject of the conflict is important to all parties. However, it is important to note that in some situations it can be very difficult to find a solution that suits everyone, especially if the opponent is not cooperative. In this case, the “Cooperation” strategy can only complicate the conflict and delay its resolution indefinitely.

These are the five main strategies for dealing with conflict. As a rule, they are usually used in confrontations with other people. And this is quite justified, because... their effectiveness is undeniable. But, at the same time, other equally effective strategies, such as suppression and negotiations, can be used to resolve conflicts.

Is it possible to avoid conflict?

It is not always possible to control your behavior in a serious conflict; this skill needs to be learned. Among those arguing, there must be at least 1 person who will try to avoid conflict. How to do it:

• Do not rush. Before expressing your opinion, you need to ask yourself questions: “Why are we arguing? Do I need this? What will I lose if I give in?”;
• Answer slowly and briefly. The faster a person speaks, the more likely he is to say too much. Measured speech will calm the opponent, after which you can try to find a compromise;
• Do not provoke with unnecessary phrases or inappropriate jokes. There is no need to touch a person if he is not in a good mood. It is better to set aside time after the lunch break to communicate with colleagues; communication can be tense in the first half of the day;
• To avoid conflict at work, you need to monitor your correspondence. Modern people often use messengers and social networks. You cannot write unnecessary things, show emotions, they can later be used by provocateurs;
• Limit communication with the provocateur. If a person provokes conflicts, you need to reduce communication with him to a minimum, do not cross paths after work or study, and do not be in public places in the same company.

A girl calms two people down

What strategy to use in a conflict is a personal decision for everyone. Depending on his position in society, point of view and ultimate goal, the person himself chooses the path of competition or seeks a compromise. If possible, it is better to avoid conflict situations, especially if they arise between close people.

Suppression

Suppression is used mainly if the subject of the conflict is not clear or if it has entered a destructive phase, i.e. has become a direct threat to the participants; and also when it is impossible to enter into an open conflict for any reason or when there is a risk of “falling face down in the mud”, losing authority, etc.

Basic human actions with the “Suppression” strategy

• Targeted and consistent reduction in the number of opponents
• Development and application of a system of norms and rules that can streamline relations between opponents
• Creating and maintaining conditions that prevent or complicate conflict interaction between the parties

Pros and cons of the Suppression strategy

Effective suppression of conflict is possible if the essence of the conflict is not clear enough, because this will nullify the mutual attacks of opponents and protect them from senseless waste of their energy. Suppression can also be effective when continued conflict would cause serious harm to both sides. But when resorting to suppression, it is important to correctly calculate your strength, otherwise the situation may worsen and turn against you (if your opponent turns out to be stronger or has more resources). The issue of suppression should be approached by thinking through all the details.

7

Futility

Sometimes it seems that people simply forget how painful it was for them to get involved in yet another conflict, and again they step on the same old rake. They hope for a utopian triumph of personal justice, but end up with a natural bruise on their forehead.

When both partners are “on fire”, one should be aware of what the consequences of adding “oil” to additional “evidence” of one’s own rightness are. If neither side backs down, emotions intensify and the conflict grows like a tornado, absorbing all the energy of the participants. The stronger this destructive element, the more directly and openly personal superiority is imposed by belittling the importance of the opponent, even to the point of assault.

Other “interlocutors” are satisfied with the option of pressing and finishing off their partner so that he backs down, at least out of fear. This is how they become heroes of crime chronicles. Animal methods of achieving satisfaction saturate the “animal” layers of the psyche, while the “human” part suffers from shame and annoyance.

It is important to understand that in conflict communication a person expresses in words not some truth, but the energy of his emotions. "Nothing personal". Therefore, there is no point in taking what is said personally, rushing to conclusions and making serious decisions in the heat of passion. Determination fueled by intoxicated anger inevitably leads to destruction. When emotions subside, the situation changes dramatically.

You can believe to the extreme that a conflict showdown will lead to some correct conclusions, and our “correct” understanding of the situation will still reach our partner. But in fact, the most valuable conclusion drawn from the conflict is its complete uselessness - and even unprofitability.

If the desired goal is peace, but in fact a war breaks out, then self-deception continues. If there is no understanding of the futility of trying to remain right in the eyes of an opponent in a conflict, it means that until it’s pressed - either the “rakes” are not so old, or your forehead is not at all a pity.

Mutual understanding requires soil. And this is certainly not a quarrel, where partners refuse to understand each other, where everyone is aimed at asserting that they are right. An emotional showdown cannot bring anything else. If you cannot draw constructive conclusions in a calm state of mind, then hoping for this “miracle” in a state of passion is the height of naivety.

Negotiation

Negotiation is one of the most common conflict resolution strategies. With the help of negotiations, both micro-conflicts (in families, organizations) and macro-level conflicts are resolved, i.e. conflicts on a global and national scale.

Basic human actions with the “Negotiations” strategy

• Focus on finding a mutually beneficial solution
• Stopping any aggressive actions
• Showing attention to your opponent's position
• Carefully consider next steps
• Using an intermediary

Pros and cons of the Negotiation strategy

The Negotiation strategy allows the warring parties to find a common language without incurring any losses. It is very effective because... neutralizes aggressive confrontation and smoothes out the situation, and also provides the parties with time to think about what is happening and search for new solutions. However, if negotiations suddenly drag on for some reason, this may be perceived by either party as avoiding the conflict or unwillingness to solve the problem, which may lead to even more aggressive offensive actions.

You should choose a strategy for behavior in a conflict as thoughtfully, consciously, and taking into account the specifics of the situation itself. A correctly chosen strategy will give maximum results, while an incorrectly chosen one, on the contrary, can only aggravate the situation. Therefore, once again carefully study this material and try to apply the acquired knowledge in practice even in small things, because by learning to resolve small conflicts, you will be able to effectively influence large ones. And remember that it is best to prevent the emergence of a conflict situation than to eliminate an already “raging flame.”

Peace to your home!

We also recommend reading:

• Storytelling
• Negotiation Matrix
• Game theory: history and application
• Resolving business conflicts
• Rules for tough negotiations
• Eldred's Power Strategy
• How to Deal with Conflicts of Interest
• Mintzberg's 5 Ps Strategy for Business Strategy
• Thomas Questionnaire for Behavior in Conflict
• Conflicts and strategies for dealing with them
• Porter's Five Forces in Business

Key words:1Communication

Typology and styles of conflict behavior

The vast majority of people do not seek conflicts and try to either avoid them or resolve them peacefully. However, for effective influence and behavior in conflict situations, it is useful to know the principles and rules applicable to resolving a wide range of conflicts. Summarizing various sources, we can identify the main styles of conflict behavior.

There is a direct connection between the basic strategies for dealing with conflicts and styles of conflict behavior, in which stable, typical behavioral traits of conflict participants are manifested. There are quite a variety of classifications of such styles. Summarizing various sources, we can identify the main styles of conflict behavior.

1. Power style (style of fighting or competition). The essence of this style is the desire to impose one’s will and resolve the conflict using force (power, administrative sanctions, economic pressure, etc.), regardless of the interests of the opponent. This style is usually used when:

• there is a clear advantage in strength, resources of influence and confidence in victory;
• achieving the goal is of high importance;
• compromises are difficult due to the specifics of the object: it cannot be divided (for example, the position of the president of a company).

Despite the apparent effectiveness of using the power style, it has significant drawbacks. After all, the forceful style, as a rule, does not eliminate the source of conflict, but only forces the weaker to temporarily submit. After some time, especially if the balance of forces changes, the conflict may resume. In addition, subordination imposed by force is often external, formal. The defeated can offer hidden resistance, accumulate strength and wait for an opportune moment. The winner often relaxes, loses his readiness to fight, and loses his resources of influence.

The forceful style is often used by managers in relation to subordinates, since by their status they have power and superiority in influence resources. In such cases, the weaknesses of the power style noted above usually appear, and in addition, it can cause frustration in subordinates and discourage them from any desire to show initiative and activity.

2. Avoidance of conflict, avoidance of conflict situations or exit from conflict. Avoidance of conflict is considered preferable if:

• there is a lack of one’s own resources necessary for conflict actions, and the superiority of the enemy;
• the significance of the problem is low and it is not worth wasting time and resources on confrontation;
• It is advisable to delay time in order to gather strength and wait for a convenient situation, the right moment.

Often all three of these circumstances occur simultaneously. However, even if they are present, it is not always possible to avoid the conflict; very often you have to choose a style of behavior associated with unilateral concessions.

3. Adaptation (to the interests and requirements of the opponent). This style of conflict behavior involves the need to sacrifice one’s interests in favor of the opponent, fulfill his demands and abandon one’s own goals. Consistent use of this style leads to victory for one side. The adaptation style often has to be used by subordinates in conflicts with superiors, as well as by lower-level managers in relation to senior managers.

Accommodation is usually a forced style of conflict behavior. If it is accompanied by an awareness of one’s own wrongness in the dispute, then it does not have negative organizational consequences. If the adaptation is viewed as forced and internal disagreement with the winner remains, then it has approximately the same negative consequences for the losing side as with a forceful style. The only difference is in preserving the resources that are spent on fighting in a forceful style.

4. Compromise. The essence of this style of conflict behavior is partial (to a certain extent) concessions to the opponent in anticipation of similar actions on his part in the hope of avoiding an aggravation of the conflict, which is fraught with greater losses than individual concessions. Compromise is one of the most common styles of conflict behavior. Often, a compromise allows you to quickly and relatively easily resolve a conflict or prevent it.

Compromise as a way to resolve conflicts has the following disadvantages:

• it can, especially at an early stage, block the identification of the source of the conflict, prevent a deep analysis of the essence of the problem and the search for optimal ways to resolve it;
• it preserves relations of confrontation and mutual dissatisfaction, since it means forced concessions that are unpleasant for each side. Because of this, opponents may maintain a negative attitude towards each other, as well as a feeling that they have lost or been deceived. If vital goals or values ​​are sacrificed in the compromise, discontent may grow and eventually lead to renewed and intensified conflict.

5. Collaboration. This style of conflict behavior involves a joint solution to the problem that is acceptable to all parties to the conflict. Cooperation means carefully familiarizing yourself with the position of the opposite side, finding out the causes of the conflict, refusing to achieve one’s own goals at the expense of the opponent’s interests, searching for mutually acceptable ways and solutions and their joint implementation. Cooperation is most correlated with an idealistic strategy for dealing with conflict. It is quite widespread in management practice.

More on the blog: A lesson everyone should learn

6. Maintaining the status quo (peaceful coexistence). The essence of this style is to jointly maintain and preserve their positions in order to prevent the conflict from growing, which would be unfavorable for both sides. The resolution of the dispute is postponed indefinitely. This style is used if the conflict is deep enough, but allows for relatively normal coexistence of the parties. At the same time, each of the participants is not confident in their victory and fears a destructive confrontation, or even defeat.

In an organization, the style of peaceful coexistence is usually implemented in the form of an informal agreement, on the basis of which spheres of action are divided or the inadmissibility of extreme forms of rivalry is stipulated, and often joint actions are provided for in relation to a third party that encroaches on the existing order.

7. Formation of indifference. This style occupies an intermediate position between cooperation and peaceful coexistence. Its essence is to jointly neutralize the emotional intensity that has arisen around a controversial issue, and to work to explain the limited significance of this issue for the parties to the conflict. After such actions that reduce the severity of the conflict, many problems gradually disappear on their own.

Conflict: choosing a behavior style

According to a number of empirical studies, in practice, the search for compromises, as well as avoidance of direct confrontations, predominate. In general, the choice of behavior style in conflicts is influenced primarily by the following four factors:

• the amount of bet that can be won or lost as a result of the conflict. If there is an opportunity to get a big win or with minimal damage in case of failure, they often choose a forceful style, wrestling;
• resources that determine the possibility of competition and the likelihood of victory;
• the presence of mutual, overlapping interests among the parties to the conflict. If there is a common interest in cooperation in non-conflict areas, the choice falls, as a rule, on “soft” styles of conflict behavior;
• culture, traditions: a complex of relations between both the participants in the conflict and their environment.

Taking into account the effect of these factors, the focus on achieving one’s own goals by force and ignoring the interests of the opponent is formed something like this. First, the size of the bet and possible damage in case of defeat are determined. Then the line of behavior is adjusted taking into account one’s own resources and the strength of opponents (the probability of victory is predicted). Next, the entire range of interests in relation to the opponent is clarified.

The presence of coinciding interests encourages cooperation; their polar orientation increases the desire for competition. The nature of the existing relationships and the norms of behavior accepted in a given social environment either lead to cooperation or push to fight.

Conflict: typology of participants

The vast majority of people do not strive for conflicts and try to either avoid them or resolve them peacefully, generally preferring non-conflict behavior. The causative agents and initiators of conflicts are heterogeneous in their personal qualities. Typically, an employee with a clearly conflicting aspiration is distinguished by the fact that:

• does not think about others, does not understand their needs and interests, cares only about satisfying his own needs;
• acts ahead;
• often falsifies facts;
• looks for a weak point in the opponent’s position;
• believes that retreat leads to loss of face;
• uses gag tactics;
• considers himself an expert;
• disguises his intentions (voice, manners);
• believes that winning arguments is very important;
• refuses a discussion if it does not go in his favor.

The targets of attacks from competitive people are often those who prefer to give in and avoid conflict situations. These personality types:

• as a rule, they lose the conflict;
• express their point of view in an apologetic tone;
• believe that they will lose if they disagree with their opponent;
• worry when others do not understand their arguments;
• avoid talking about their disagreement in person;
• perceive differences of opinion very emotionally;
• believe that in conflict situations one should not stick one’s neck out;
• often find themselves faced with the temptation to give in to their opponent;
• believe that it is difficult for other people to survive conflict;
• never act thoughtlessly or rashly.

Conflict: classification of initiators

An extensive, rather figurative classification of various active and passive initiators of conflicts is given by English conflictologist Richard Bramson. He divides this kind of people into the following five types: aggressive, “complainers,” “indecisive,” “anxious individuals,” and “know-it-alls.”

1. Aggressive. They, in turn, are divided into three types: “tanks”, “snipers” and “explosives”:

“ Tanks ” are the most clearly expressed type of aggressive personalities. They are characterized by self-confidence, a loud voice, and inattention to others. They are absolutely confident in their competence and in their excellent knowledge of the interests and opinions of their colleagues. “Tanks” especially do not like aggressive reactions from those with whom they communicate. It’s difficult with “tanks,” but you can get along. To do this, you need to look them straight in the eyes, call them by name and surname, and when expressing disagreement, often use expressions such as “in my opinion,” “in my opinion,” etc. In order to achieve any success in an argument with them, you need to give them the opportunity to “let off steam.”

Also on the blog: You don’t choose a boss, you learn to work with him

“ Snipers ” act differently, mostly on the sly. They are sarcastic, make all sorts of barbs and witticisms at people, and thereby sow distrust between group members and disorganize collective actions. The most effective weapon against "snipers" is a direct attack. In order to neutralize the “sniper,” you must demand that he explain in detail the remark or witticism, and then be sure to ask him to give a constructive proposal. Usually after this the “sniper” becomes quiet and behaves more modestly. When putting “snipers” in their place, it is important to avoid direct insults and give them the opportunity to save face. Otherwise, they explode or hide “with a stone in their bosom” until the opportunity arises.

“ Blasters ” are people who are capable of suddenly filling a room with screams and attacking opponents with abuse. They often lose their temper so artistically that they create the impression that they have really been seriously offended or that someone is undermining them. It is quite simple to neutralize the conflict potential of such people: they need to be allowed to throw out accumulated emotions. In this case, after some time (five to ten minutes) they sharply soften, or even begin to apologize.

2. “Complainers” are typical provocateurs of conflicts. They tend to see personal insults in anything and complain about this to all authorities. They usually describe their “troubles” so colorfully that listeners who don’t know them often form an opinion in their favor. “Complainers” want to be given a lot of attention, to be listened to in a calm environment and certainly while sitting down. You cannot agree with them or prove them wrong. It is better to ask them to summarize everything in their own words or in writing and let them know that their feelings are noticed.

3. “Indecisive” people themselves do not directly give rise to conflict, but create favorable soil for it and provoke others to conflict actions. There are two types of “indecisive”: “analysts” are reinsurers who are afraid to make the slightest mistake, and “good-natured” people are people who never speak out for fear of making enemies. With their indecisiveness, they irritate those around them, so their work rhythm is often disrupted because of them.

Being too cautious, such workers are diligent. As a rule, they avoid those who put pressure on them. Workers of this type need to clearly set the task, determine the deadline for its completion, and also, especially the “goodies,” indicate their responsibilities to suppress or prevent various types of unrest and organizational violations.

4. “Anxious individuals” (“irresponsible”) - people who are suspicious and suspicious. They have reactive, responsive, in their opinion, aggressiveness. Anxiety does not give rise to avoidance of conflict, but to aggression. The best effect on such people is a friendly disposition towards them. You don't need to waste time talking to them. If they feel warmly treated, then their behavior gradually normalizes.

5. “Know-it-alls” (“erudites”) - employees who try to create the impression among others that they know everything, and at the same time constantly mind their own business. They are divided into genuine and “fake” scholars. The judgments of the former in most cases are professionally substantiated, while the latter only try to prove their professionalism in words.

It’s easy to put “fake” scholars in their place, showing their unreasonable pretentiousness and professional incompetence. Genuine scholars are valuable workers, but with their defiant behavior they often create irritation and a feeling of inferiority in those around them. If they get too carried away, then they can be stopped, “sobered up” with specific questions, asking them to make their own constructive suggestions. It should be borne in mind that “erudites” rarely admit their mistakes.

Dealing with each of the considered types of conflict initiators requires the manager to be able to accurately determine the type of employee and use appropriate influence tactics.

Author: Vasily Pavlovich Pugachev, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Head of the Department of Personnel Management, Faculty of Public Administration, Moscow State University. Lomonosov.

Source

Read our classified materials